CVE-2025-15125VulnerabilityPublished 28 Dec 2025Updated 29 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-15125: JeecgBoot · Improper Authorization

Affects JeecgBootSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.3Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.jeecg/jeecgboot`pkg:maven/org.jeecg/jeecgboot`Other threats	Affected =3.0 =3.1 =3.2 =3.3 =3.4 =3.5 =3.6 =3.7 =3.8 =3.9.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Until an official patch is released, European organizations should implement strict input validation on the departId parameter at the application or API gateway level to prevent unauthorized manipulation. Enhancing access control mechanisms to enforce role-based checks server-side can reduce the risk of bypass. Network segmentation and firewall rules should limit access to the affected API endpoint to trusted users and systems only. Monitoring and logging access to /sys/permission/queryDepartPermission can help detect anomalous or unauthorized queries. Organizations should also consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to block suspicious parameter tampering. Regular security audits and penetration testing focused on authorization logic are recommended to identify similar weaknesses. Finally, organizations should engage with the JeecgBoot community or consider alternative frameworks if vendor support remains absent.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.0. Affected is the function queryDepartPermission of the file /sys/permission/queryDepartPermission. The manipulation of the argument departId results in improper authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the improper authorization vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of internal permission structures and department-level access controls. While the direct impact on confidentiality and integrity is limited, exposure of permission data can facilitate lateral movement or privilege escalation attempts by attackers. Organizations relying on JeecgBoot for critical business applications or sensitive data management may face increased risk of insider threat exploitation or external reconnaissance. The lack of vendor response and patch availability prolongs exposure, especially for enterprises with complex permission hierarchies. However, the high complexity of exploitation and low CVSS score suggest that widespread impact is unlikely without targeted, skilled attackers. Still, sectors with stringent data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government, should consider this vulnerability a potential risk to compliance and operational security.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Dec 2025, 23:43 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats